THE FOG of war, normally confined to the battlefield, has settled over western capitals since the UN-backed military intervention in Libya began last week. Confusion surrounds the mission’s political direction, its military co-ordination and its strategic aim, with disagreement even within national governments over whether the removal of Muammar Gadafy from power falls within its mandate.
The allies have struggled to agree a command structure for the operation, with France resisting calls to hand over the lead role to Nato. Until now, the United States has led the military operation but President Barack Obama has made clear his determination to hand off military leadership as soon as possible.
Mr Obama agreed this week with Britain’s David Cameron and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy that the military campaign to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya should be led by Nato but that political oversight should be in the hands of the international coalition backing the campaign. This coalition is led by France, Britain and the US but includes Arab countries such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates as well as Nato member states.
Mr Obama’s reluctance to lead the intervention in Libya and his multilateralist approach to the crisis have drawn criticism from Republicans in Washington. In a letter to the president, House speaker John Boehner complained of “the limited, sometimes contradictory, case” Mr Obama’s administration has made for the military action in Libya. “At the same time, by contrast, it appears your administration has consulted extensively on these same matters with foreign entities such as the United Nations and the Arab League,” he wrote.
Mr Obama’s administration did indeed consult extensively before backing military action and it was not until after the Arab League endorsed a no-fly zone over Libya that the US gave its backing. His embrace of multilateralism stands in sharp contrast to the brash unilateralism of his predecessor, George W Bush.
The modesty of Washington’s preferred role in the Libyan mission also represents a departure from the Clinton administration’s view of the US as “the indispensable nation” in the world. Mr Obama’s reticence makes sense for the leader of a nation already embroiled in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and acknowledges the reality of a multipolar world in which no single power is strong enough to impose its will on the others.
Multilateralism brings its own challenges however and the delay in securing a UN mandate for the Libyan intervention may have given Col Gadafy’s forces the time they needed to mount an effective offensive against rebel strongholds. Further tensions may emerge among the allies if the military operation drags on. Indeed, the intervention remains fraught with risk, notably of civilian casualties that could undermine already shaky Arab support for the action. And the contrast between the action against Col Gadafy and Washington’s hands-off approach to the violent government response to protests in Bahrain, a key strategic ally, is not lost on a sceptical public across the region.